The people pulling the levers of power behind the Trump facade don't care that the shit they do could be used against them by a Democrat administration because they don't plan on ever relinquishing power.
I agree with the sentiment, but I don't necessarily think that their calculus has to be that extreme - Donald Trump has made it clear that he would use his pardon power and I could very well see him issuing a blanked pardon for anyone who served in his administration, who served in e.g. DHS "snatch squads", etc.
Which is not to say that I think you are wrong with your suggestion about Trump clearly wanting a third term, only that I think they would reach safety with a less severe move.
I don't know that Trump would be a part of whatever follows. He's little more than a useful tool that the Heritage Foundation and other Christian Nationalists behind Project 2025 needed to gain a hold on the government and Supreme Court. He's fulfilled his usefulness now that they have a stranglehold on all of the power in Washington.
so if she DID turn over the goods, is that malpractice in that she would be expected to give grand jury instructions, clarifications, and to have said something - anything - when deliberations were done?
I'm not running to the defense of Ms. Halligan here, but it seems to me that this particular episode highlights a potentially deeper problem. In this case, we don't know whether or not Ms. Halligan presented additional material to the Grand Jury whilst the Court Reporter was absent. The problem with that statement is that a critical element of the process of delivering justice has a major vulnerability in it.
We need take no view as to whether or not, in this specific instance, Ms. Halligan's explanation is accurate. The issue is that the process by which the Grand Jury testimony was conducted made it possible for this challenge to be raised, *at all*. This is a fundamental flaw in the Grand Jury process. We've learned through the work of Liz and Andrew that a Judge is not present during Grand Jury hearings, which means that there is no referee to ensure that the rules are followed.
I suspect that if we were to ask e.g. the Supreme Court whether this was dangerous, their response would be to remind us that, hey, no biggie, this is just about making a determination as to whether or not to indict. This isn't a determination of guilt.
But that's not true at all.
Imagine a complex case, something that hinges on some critical technicalities, something that is deep in the weeds of mountains of documents and expert witness testimony and the like. Now think about how much a successful defense of a case like that is likely to cost the defendant - the legal fees for wading through the paperwork, the hiring of expert witnesses, the prep time, the court time, the time away from work/life... and you could see that the potential cost to a defendant in terms of time and money could be *huge*. Some cases can run for *years*.
I think I'm right in saying that even if a defendant is cleared, when the plaintiff is the Federal Government, the defendant cannot generally recover their costs (unless they can prove that the prosecutor acted in bad faith - i.e. that they were required to answer a malicious prosecution).
So that this means is that a President who exerted total control over the Depart of Justice, say, could order the AG to dig up any trivial excuse to take someone to court... and even if they are found innocent, they will be out of pocket for their costs. (Which may explain why President Trump is so keen on having his DOJ bring cases against those he views as enemies).
But there needs to be a safeguard - a mechanism to ensure that the facts of the case were transparently and honestly presented to the indicting Grand Jury. At bare minimum it seems that there ought to be clear rules that say "In order for an indictment to be considered valid, the following verifiable conditions need to be evidenced as met..."
This isn't an issue specific to the case here. It's a fundamental part of ensuring that justice really is served. Seems to me that the rules around Grand Jury Secrecy are only relevant up to the point that the government decides to "go public" with the charges in the indictment. At that point, the *entire* Grand Jury transcript should be made available to the defendant.
After all, if the defendant is so confident of their case, where's the harm?
I think if I were part of the legal teams supporting either James Comey or Letitia James, I would go very, *very* public with a request for anyone - anyone, please - who served on the Grand Jury and whose identity can be verified as such to step forward, review the materials provided to the respective defense legal teams and either confirm or challenge the veracity of the claims now being made by DA Halligan.
I think the hardest part in that may not be getting a juror to step forward, but in being able to establish that the volunteer really, really did sit on the jury. They may be able to provide some kind of evidence of the same - such as any correspondence they exchanged with the court.
The problem that both Comey and James have with these attestations is that absent testimony from someone else who was in the room at that time, they have no way of knowing if Halligan is telling the truth now. Of course, we must be extremely careful to not "lump together" those who have elected to serve in or for this administration, but the stakes here are enormous.
Part of the problem here, of course, is that no judge presides over grand jury hearings. So absent a court reporter, there is no way any of us could know for sure.
The people pulling the levers of power behind the Trump facade don't care that the shit they do could be used against them by a Democrat administration because they don't plan on ever relinquishing power.
I agree with the sentiment, but I don't necessarily think that their calculus has to be that extreme - Donald Trump has made it clear that he would use his pardon power and I could very well see him issuing a blanked pardon for anyone who served in his administration, who served in e.g. DHS "snatch squads", etc.
Which is not to say that I think you are wrong with your suggestion about Trump clearly wanting a third term, only that I think they would reach safety with a less severe move.
I don't know that Trump would be a part of whatever follows. He's little more than a useful tool that the Heritage Foundation and other Christian Nationalists behind Project 2025 needed to gain a hold on the government and Supreme Court. He's fulfilled his usefulness now that they have a stranglehold on all of the power in Washington.
so if she DID turn over the goods, is that malpractice in that she would be expected to give grand jury instructions, clarifications, and to have said something - anything - when deliberations were done?
Isnt it curious how many "coincidences" occur within the current administration?
I'm not running to the defense of Ms. Halligan here, but it seems to me that this particular episode highlights a potentially deeper problem. In this case, we don't know whether or not Ms. Halligan presented additional material to the Grand Jury whilst the Court Reporter was absent. The problem with that statement is that a critical element of the process of delivering justice has a major vulnerability in it.
We need take no view as to whether or not, in this specific instance, Ms. Halligan's explanation is accurate. The issue is that the process by which the Grand Jury testimony was conducted made it possible for this challenge to be raised, *at all*. This is a fundamental flaw in the Grand Jury process. We've learned through the work of Liz and Andrew that a Judge is not present during Grand Jury hearings, which means that there is no referee to ensure that the rules are followed.
I suspect that if we were to ask e.g. the Supreme Court whether this was dangerous, their response would be to remind us that, hey, no biggie, this is just about making a determination as to whether or not to indict. This isn't a determination of guilt.
But that's not true at all.
Imagine a complex case, something that hinges on some critical technicalities, something that is deep in the weeds of mountains of documents and expert witness testimony and the like. Now think about how much a successful defense of a case like that is likely to cost the defendant - the legal fees for wading through the paperwork, the hiring of expert witnesses, the prep time, the court time, the time away from work/life... and you could see that the potential cost to a defendant in terms of time and money could be *huge*. Some cases can run for *years*.
I think I'm right in saying that even if a defendant is cleared, when the plaintiff is the Federal Government, the defendant cannot generally recover their costs (unless they can prove that the prosecutor acted in bad faith - i.e. that they were required to answer a malicious prosecution).
So that this means is that a President who exerted total control over the Depart of Justice, say, could order the AG to dig up any trivial excuse to take someone to court... and even if they are found innocent, they will be out of pocket for their costs. (Which may explain why President Trump is so keen on having his DOJ bring cases against those he views as enemies).
But there needs to be a safeguard - a mechanism to ensure that the facts of the case were transparently and honestly presented to the indicting Grand Jury. At bare minimum it seems that there ought to be clear rules that say "In order for an indictment to be considered valid, the following verifiable conditions need to be evidenced as met..."
This isn't an issue specific to the case here. It's a fundamental part of ensuring that justice really is served. Seems to me that the rules around Grand Jury Secrecy are only relevant up to the point that the government decides to "go public" with the charges in the indictment. At that point, the *entire* Grand Jury transcript should be made available to the defendant.
After all, if the defendant is so confident of their case, where's the harm?
I think if I were part of the legal teams supporting either James Comey or Letitia James, I would go very, *very* public with a request for anyone - anyone, please - who served on the Grand Jury and whose identity can be verified as such to step forward, review the materials provided to the respective defense legal teams and either confirm or challenge the veracity of the claims now being made by DA Halligan.
I think the hardest part in that may not be getting a juror to step forward, but in being able to establish that the volunteer really, really did sit on the jury. They may be able to provide some kind of evidence of the same - such as any correspondence they exchanged with the court.
The problem that both Comey and James have with these attestations is that absent testimony from someone else who was in the room at that time, they have no way of knowing if Halligan is telling the truth now. Of course, we must be extremely careful to not "lump together" those who have elected to serve in or for this administration, but the stakes here are enormous.
Part of the problem here, of course, is that no judge presides over grand jury hearings. So absent a court reporter, there is no way any of us could know for sure.
This is great, Liz Dye: Mondo bizarro Magalonian incompetence is leaving a self-generating mocumentary as historic record.
I’m no big city insurance lawyer, but I know Bird Law, maybe I should put my hat in the ring.